Random testing definitely makes it a gamble. My husband's company has annual testing and no random testing for smoking, so we could prepare. But, personally, I still think I'd take my chances. (I'm not recommending this for others nor does CASAA tell people to do this - this is just my personal opinion.) Most companies don't want to pay for random nicotine testing unless they actually suspect that someone is smoking. Those lab tests get expensive. If they catch us, so be it. It could take years for them to catch us and that could add up to thousands of dollars now that Obamacare is allowing up to 50% higher rates to be charged to smokers.
The thing is, it's the employer companies who choose to charge the smokers, not the insurance companies. They can choose to not charge smokers more (or, more precisely, charge non-smokers less) and Obamacare will extend those options to charging people more for being overweight, as well. One major problem with having nearly 60% of people covered under employer-paid health insurance. Suddenly, employers have a much greater stake in what you do when you aren't even at work (and can make your life miserable for it) because they now have minimum coverage standards that will significantly increase costs.
Anyhow, employers need to be educated about the difference between the health risks of smoking and those (non-existent) health risks of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine use. The best example of that is former smokers who need to continue to use nicotine to keep from smoking. Requiring complete abstinence would only cause them to relapse to smoking and supposed higher health costs. There are plenty of smokers who will just pay to be able to keep smoking if not smoking using nicotine alternatives doesn't give them any financial benefit. (Why would they use a harmless, smoke-free alternative when they'll be charged as a smoker anyhow?)
